PCMark05

Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by deusexaethera, May 25, 2006.

  1. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    What PCMark scores have people around here been getting lately? I'm looking for a point of reference for my machine.
     
  2. dorkultra

    dorkultra OT's resident crohns dude OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    22,735
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    yinzer / nilbog, trollhio
    heres mine. nothing special.
    amd athlon 64 3000+
    ecs 755-A2 motherboard
    2x 512 dual channel ddr400 ram
    ATI all in wonder 9600 128
    maxtor diamond max 10 ata133 hard drive
    i don't game, it works fine for me
    [​IMG]
     
  3. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scary. Your computer is almost the same build as mine:

    [​IMG]

    Athlon XP instead of Athlon 64
    2GB DDR333 instead of 1GB DDR400 (it should be interleaved, but I think the RAM refuses to cooperate)
    Sapphire Radeon 9600 XT Pro Ultimate instead of Radeon 9600 All-In-Wonder
    Seagate Barracuda ATA-100 instead of Maxtor DiamondMax ATA-133

    I do game, but I don't play FPS on my computer, so the Radeon 9600 does great for RTS and RPG. World of Warcraft (back when I played it) was a beautiful sight every evening.

    I also don't have a pagefile on my HDD, on account of the 2GB of RAM. I saw a nice jump in bootup speed when I did that.

    EDIT: I'd be interested to see what a full battery of tests on your computer would show.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2006
  4. cougar_uk_2k

    cougar_uk_2k New Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,360
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scotland
    AMD Athlon64 X2-4400+
    2GB PC4000 Corsair Memory (Running at PC3200)
    512MB PowerColor ATi Radeon X1900XTX
    Maxtor DiamondMax 10 SATA-150 HDD
    [​IMG]
     
  5. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fine, whip my ass then. :fawk:

    Dual-core's a nice setup, huh? Hey, how come your 2GB RAM reads out at 2032MB instead of 2048MB? And is that a single SATA drive or a mirror/RAID setup?
     
  6. cougar_uk_2k

    cougar_uk_2k New Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,360
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scotland
    You know... I hadn't noticed that up until now. Thanks! I guess the onboard graphics are still using 16MB of system ram.:rofl:

    It's just a single drive, I'm using a small case.:wiggle:
     
  7. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nice, another Micro-ATX fan, eh? I refuse to buy or build a PC that I can't carry under one arm.

    Man, I can't believe how much higher your HDD score is compared to mine. Does your HDD support NCQ, or is Serial ATA just that much better than ATA-100?
     
  8. cougar_uk_2k

    cougar_uk_2k New Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,360
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scotland
    Well to be quite honest I've just started using SATA for my primary drive, but going by those figures it's about on par with the speed differences.

    ATA-100 = 100MB/s

    SATA-150 = 150MB/s

    50% faster.

    My score is about 64% more. Soooo methinks it's mainly the speed difference.

    Could also be the fact I'm using a relatively new HDD to begin with.

    And it does support NCQ.

    http://www.maxtor.com/portal/site/Maxtor/menuitem.5d2b41d3cef51dfe29dd10a191346068/?channelpath=/en_us/Support/Product%20Support/Desktop%20Storage/DiamondMax%20Family/DiamondMax%2010

    Only has an 8MB buffer though.
     
  9. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    My drive has an 8MB buffer too, so that's not going to affect anything. I'm gonna guess that since NCQ was introduced in late 2003 or so, PCMark05 is designed to handle sending multiple asynchronous file requests to the hard drive during its small-file-access tests, so you're getting an extra 14% or so boost from the NCQ.

    I ended up buying a set of three Raptors (without NCQ) to connect to my new RAID card. When I looked at the benchmarks, I realized that I'd get a more consistent performance boost from faster, dumber hard drives than I would from slower, smarter ones. I hope to post a new PCMark score with the new drives installed in the next couple of days.
     
  10. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    WRONG. I can bet with a high-degree of certainty that his motherboard's SATA controller does not support NCQ.

    To all the "stats-jockeys" SATA is definitely faster. Not just on paper, but in real-world results. SATA will do a much better job at sustaining high-speed transfers. The interface is better-apt to doing so. And the Seagate drives do an even better job than the WD/Maxtor drives... Seagate uses a genuine SATA controller on their drives. WD (and I think Maxtor) is still using a SATA>PATA bridge. Which means they take their cheaper PATA drives, and use a controller than on-PCB converts to PATA. The only exception is their Raptor drives. However, the Raptors can't seem to bring the "bang-for-the-buck" to them. I'd still rather run some 300GB Seagates, instead.
     
  11. cougar_uk_2k

    cougar_uk_2k New Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,360
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scotland
    I'm willing to find out, because to be quite honest. I know next to fuck all about hardrives.:rofl:
     
  12. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    what mobo and hdd do you have?
     
  13. dorkultra

    dorkultra OT's resident crohns dude OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    22,735
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    yinzer / nilbog, trollhio
    here ya go, still nothing special
    [​IMG]
     
  14. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mkay, so I'm wondering: in your BIOS, do you have AGP 1WS READ and AGP 1WS WRITE enabled? If you don't, turn them on. Doing that doubled the performance of my card, and since we have basically the same card, it should work for you too.
     
  15. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do like Seagate as a general rule, but I figured that the Raptors' 5-year warranty and the fact that I'm going to be RAIDing them should mitigate any chance of losing data from their relatively high failure rate. I'll just RMA them over and over if need be. They definitely have more bang than Seagate does ATM, but they definitely cost more bucks too. But hell, I don't mind, I've got a good job and this is the final upgrade to my current computer. I'll use it til it's too slow to stand, then replace it.

    Where's your benchmark, Jolly?
     
  16. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    Running any benchmark would require me to stop the 11ty billion progs I have running right now. No thanks.
     
  17. dorkultra

    dorkultra OT's resident crohns dude OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    22,735
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    yinzer / nilbog, trollhio
    i enabled something called apg fast read/write under cmos, it boosted my score up to a whooping 730, i don't really care, it's cool.
    theres no other settings to change under cmos, my old motherboard had more settings, but it also had a startup problem etc.
     
  18. cougar_uk_2k

    cougar_uk_2k New Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,360
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scotland
  19. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you subscribe to the belief that an idle CPU cycle is a wasted CPU cycle, eh? I bet you love Solaris; it was purpose-built to prevent wasting CPU time.
     
  20. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    I actually have Solaris 10 running on the machine in my living room :wiggle: I use WinXP 99% of the time on my primary workstation, but that may change. 6 months ago I would dabble in gamming a few times a week, but I haven't touched a 3d game in well over 3 months, now. I've never had a working problem using linux, just that it didn't satisfy my "entertainment" side. Perhaps FreeBSD is now a likely candidate?

    Alas, so much work to get my system formatted and back where I want it. I will do it eventually. I don't know, perhaps I will dive in tonight. I've been begging for a project to use my notebook for. I had another in mind, but we'll see.
     
  21. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
  22. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    I finally got that RAID installed. Three 74GB Raptors connected to a PNY NetCell RAID controller. Results follow:

    [​IMG]

    I copied and pasted my pre-RAID numbers next to the new numbers. The numbers don't lie: I'm definitely getting better performance with the RAID than I used to get with a single ATA-100 drive, and slightly better than cougar_uk_2k is getting with a single SATA drive, even with the PCI slot bottlenecking the data transfer.

    I also have PassMark Performance Test installed, and the results match what PCMark found -- data transfer under all conditions is 60%-90% better than what it used to be.

    The performance may be the same as I would've gotten with two 150GB Raptors connected in a simple mirror, but the 150's are $110 more expensive than the 74's per-unit. So even though I have three drives instead of two, I saved $60, got the same amount of storage, and have half the overhead of a mirrored setup.

    The PNY NetCell card was a dream to configure; it did all of the setup itself. Dell's PercRAID cards allow a lot more customization, but the NetCell chip definitely gets the job done with no CPU overhead whatsoever. It doesn't support NCQ, but it (claims to) have some kind of intelligent read-ahead that caches files it expects to be used in its onboard memory. Not bad at all for an $89 RAID controller.

    The only thing that bothers me is the noise the Raptors make during disk-access, but I knew that was going to be a tradeoff, and they're nice and quiet otherwise.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2006
  23. dorkultra

    dorkultra OT's resident crohns dude OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    22,735
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    yinzer / nilbog, trollhio
    thats cool to see the increase in the raid. raid 5? my old mobo supported raid, but my new one doesnt. i never even tested it out.
     
  24. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    RAID 3; the algorithm to expand a RAID 3 to a larger number of disks is a lot less complicated than it is for RAID 5, and one of the selling points of the NetCell card is the ability to add more disks to increase storage space. My card only has 3 SATA ports, but they make a 5-port model too.

    The performance difference between RAID 3 and RAID 5 is minimal with only 3 disks. RAID 5 tends to have lower read speeds than RAID 3, because a fraction of the data from each drive is parity data and it gets discarded, but the write speed for RAID 5 tends to be faster than RAID 3 because the parity data gets written to multiple disks instead of just one. As I said, though, with the 3-disk setup I have the transfer speed is about 65% higher under all conditions.
     
  25. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    random read/write speeds are faster for RAID 5 when compared to RAID 3. Sequential writes take the same amount of time between RAID 5 and 3. Raid 3 does have slightly higher maximum throughput for sequential reads, however.

    RAID 7 is the fastest you can get for writing
    RAID 10 is the fastest you can get for reading
     

Share This Page